The State Government exceeded its jurisdiction under the U.P. Rent Control Act by restoring a sub-letting order that contravenes established tenant rights, emphasizing the requirement that tenants occupy premises personally.

1. This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India by Shamshei Bahadur for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari, or a like writ or direction, to quash all the proceedings leading to and including the order dated 19-2-1959, Annexure--'F' to the affidavit, of the Town Rationing Officer / District Supply Officer, Lucknow (to be referred hereinafter as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer), respondent No. 4 who was exercising the powers of the District Magistrate under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (to be referred hereinafter as the Act), and also the order of the State Government dated 8-2-1960, Annexure--'K' to the affidavit, whereby the order dated 19-2-1959 was re - established. The State Government has been impleaded as respondent No. 1 by the name of the State of Uttar Pradesh. A request was also made for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No. 4 not to give effect to the order of the State Government and to continue to treat the petitioner as a tenant of the premises in question in pursuance of his order dated 17-1-1959, Annexure--'E' to the affidavit. After the proceeding under S.7-6 of the Act was initiated by M/s. Property Agents, respondent No. 3, the petitioner had the petition amended by in pleading Munsif (South), Lucknow, as respondent No. 5, and by including a prayer for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the above proceeding under S.7 - B, and also for a writ of prohibition to direct the Munsif not to take any further action in the proceeding.

2. In the writ petition serious allegations were made against the conduct of Sri Jag Mohan Singh Negi, the then Minister Incharge of the department. He was consequently impleaded as respondent No. 6, so that no order may be passed without giving him a hearing. Sri Negi filed a counter - affidavit, but for purposes of the present proceeding it is not necessary to give the details of the allegations made and the versions of the respondents on this point. It may simply be mentioned that according to the petitioner, respondent No. 6 had acted arbitrarily with a view to help Messrs. Ganeshdas Ramgopal, respondent No. 2, in recovering rent in excess of the reasonable rent as was not permissible under the law. Sri Negi and also respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have denied these allegations and their version is that he had throughout acted impartially without an attempt to show favour to anyone.

3. In the writ petition